Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Phony Progressives' Principled Anti-Gay Bigotry

Obama could stop the implementation of the catastrophically failed Don't Ask Don't Tell in five minutes' time, by the way, with an Executive Order, while Congress sets up the groundwork for the "proper" repeal of the policy everybody the least bit sane claims to support (without, you know, ever doing anything about it). And given the waning of support for the policy outside the beltway as well as in the public pronouncements of military brass and experts this move would cost him almost nothing at all in the way of cherished political capital. Those who are pretending that defending the letter of a gratuitously unjust law represents some highfalutin' moral principle need to stop kidding themselves because they certainly aren't kidding me. As if history has ever looked unkindly upon those who refused to implement an unjust law in an effort to fight bigotry. I daresay few straight people lecturing me smugly and philosophically on "questions of principle" today would be offering up these moralizing castles in the air if it was their own standing and rights that were being compromised like this, year after year after year after year by their allies and friends as much as their rabid reactionary foes. Complete and utter bullshit.

19 comments:

Anonymous
said...

DADT? Prionciples? What kind of principles? DADT is a rotten Clinton-era compromise, it's as "principled" as Bernie Madoff!

Sometimes I'm ashamed at being straight. When my fellow straight dumb***es would learn that it's EXACTLY the same thing as "skeery unwashed illegals stealing OUR JOBS!" - sheer bigotry with no basis in reality whatsoever, used by certain interests to manipulate the gullible.

Life would be easier if we all were snails... Then again, that dart thing they use to get each other's attention is a bit extreme... :)

From _Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong_by Marc D. Hauserhttp://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Right-Wrong/dp/006078072X/

p. 196:

Yuck!

If empathy is the emotion most likely to cause us to approach others,disgust is the emotion most likely to cause us to flee. Unlike allother emotions, disgust is associated with exquisitely vivid triggers,perceptual devices for detection, and facial contortions. It is alsothe most powerful emotion against sin, especially in the domainsof food and sex.

To capture the core intuition, imagine the following scenarios:

-- Eating your dead pet

-- Having intercourse with a younger sibling

-- Consuming someone else's vomit

-- Picking up a dog's feces in your bare hands

. . .

Darwin defined disgust as "something revolting, primarily in relationto the sense of taste, as actually perceived or vividly imagined;and secondarily to anything which causes a similar feeling, through thesense of smell, touch, and even eyesight." Over a hundred years later,the psychologist Paul Rozin refined Darwin's intuition, suggestingthat there are different kinds of disgust, with **core** disgust focusedon oral ingestion and contamination: "Revulsion at the prospect of[oral] incorporation of an offensive object. The offensive objectsare contaminants; that is, if they even briefly contact an acceptablefood, they tend to render that food unacceptable." What makesRozin's view especially interesting is that many of the things thatelicit disgust are not only stomach-churning but morally repugnant.Thus, once we leave core disgust, we enter into a conception ofthe emotion that is symbolic, attaching itself to objects, people,or behaviors that are immoral. People who consume certain thingsor violate particular social norms are, in some sense, disgusting. . .

Though disgust and morality are clearly intertwined, what comes firstin this egg-and-chicken problem? Do moral vegetarians first experiencedisgust when they see meat and then develop a moral stance towardthe piece of dead flesh sitting on their plate? Or do they first workthrough the moral rationale against eating meat and then developa feeling of disgust as they imagine how much suffering goes on ina slaughterhouse? Is disgust cause or consequence? Is disgustfirst or second?

The anthropologist Daniel Fessler provides a simple way to beginanswering this question. Consider the observation that peoplediffer in how easily and intensely they are disgusted by differentobjects and behaviors, but that if you are highly reactive to onekind of object, you will also be highly reactive to others. If youthink that vomit is extremely disgusting, chances are you will alsothink that feces, the sight of a person cutting a finger, and anopen facial wound are equally disgusting. If one thing readilyelicits an intense feeling of disgust, other things will as well. . .Fessler found no relationship between sensitivity to disgust andthe reasons for either eating or abstaining from eating meat.Moral vegetarians first take a stance on eating meat and thendevelop a profound feeling of disgust toward meat and meat-eaters.Disgust -- in this specific case, at least -- is second, a consequenceof taking a moral stance. . .

Disgust carries two. . . features that make it a particularly effectivesocial emotion: It enjoys a certain level of immunity from consciousreflection, and it is contagious like yawning and laughter, infectingwhat others think with blinding speed. To see how this works,answer the following questions:

1. Would you drink apple juice from a brand-new hospital bedpan?

2. Would you eat chocolate fudge that looks like dog feces?

3. If you opened a box of chocolates and found that someone hadtaken a small bite out of each one, would you eat any?

4. If your mom served you a plate of your favorite food decoratedon the side with sterilized dead cockroaches, would you eat thefood?

Most people answer "no" to these questions. If they answer "yes,"they do so after a noticeable pause. These answers are a bit odd, onreflection. There is nothing unsanitary about apple juice in abrand-new, sterilized bedpan. And the shape of chocolate fudgeplays no role in its palatability. But our sensory systems don'tknow this: Bedpans are for urination, and things that **look** likefeces typically **are.** Our minds have been fine-tuned to detectfeatures in the environment that are causally and consistentlyconnected with disease. Once detected, a signal is sent to thesystems in the brain that generate disgust, and once generated, theaction system is commandeered, driving an evasive response. Thecascade of processes is so rapid, automatic, and powerful that ourconscious, cool-headed, rational minds are incapable of overridingit. Like visual illusions, when our sensory systems detect somethingdisgusting, we avoid it even if we consciously know that this isirrational and absurd. Disgust engages an automated sequence ofactions that leads to tactical evasion.

A second component of disgust is its capacity to spread like a virus,contaminating all that comes in its path. How would you feel aboutwearing Hitler's sweater? Most of Rozin's undergraduatesubjects at the University of Pennsylvania rated thisas a highly disgusting thing to do. People who respond in this waythink that Hitler was a morally repugnant character and that wearinghis sweater might transmit some of his most horrific qualities.

Disgust wins the award as the single most irresponsible emotion, a feelingthat has led to extreme in-group--out-group divisions followed byinhumane treatment. Disgust's trick is simple: Declare those you don'tlike to be vermin or parasites, and it is easy to think of themas disgusting, deserving of exclusion, dismissal, and annihilation.All horrific cases of human abuse entail this kind of transformation,from Auschwitz to Abu Ghraib.

Although core disgust has its origins in food rejection, its contextualrelevance has mutated to other problems, and, in particular, sexualbehavior. Up until the early 1970s, homosexuality was described asabnormal behavior in the clinician's bible, the _Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders_ (DSM)-III. Carried along with thisclassification was the belief, held by many cultures, that homosexualswere disgusting. Hearing about pedophilia and incest evokes much thesame stomach-churning emotions, accompanied by moral indignation.Incest is of particular interest, given the universal taboos againstit. . .

I had a personal experience a year ago with a co-worker, 19 years youngerthan me, with whom, as a result of a tragedy in his life, I haddeveloped a closer-than-collegial relationship. I had, even beforewe became friendly outside of work, come out to him in order togive him the opportunity to back away from being seen as too friendly(going to lunch, being seen talking, and so on) in the workplace with aknown (I presume, by now, though I've discussed it with few peopleat work) homosexual.

He claimed not to be bothered by this, and indeed, did not behaveas though he were bothered by it (though it transpired lateron that his wife had warned him about getting too close toa gay man).

Nevertheless, within a year after becoming friends outside of work,I had managed (as I suspected would happen sooner or later) tocross thresholds and push buttons that made the continuation ofthe relationship impossible for both of us. These thresholds area nonissue in close (but non-sexual) relationships with gayfriends; in a relationship between a gay and a straight man, it's notso much the absolute location of a threshold as the implied **direction**of crossing it that causes trouble.

In our final conversation, my erstwhile friend came clean to methat the "mere idea" of another man having feelings for him was"viscerally repellent" to him. My reply was that if I found outthat a woman had such feelings for me, while I would be sorryto have to tell her that I couldn't return them (and indeed,that we would have to end the friendship as a result),**disgust** would not be part of my reaction. I suggested thatthe disgust was homophobia, pure and simple. He said that,whatever I wanted to call it, that's just how he felt.Of course there's no reply to that.

We have not spoken since then, and I am not sorry to have heldup a mirror to his disgust -- he had been too eager, in my opinion,to pat himself on the back for having become "mature enough"to be friends with a gay man. He said some other, sillier thingsimmediately afterward -- that he would have, in light of mybehavior toward him, to rethink his political views on issueslike DADT and gay marriage, and that he was worried that he mightno longer be able to be friends with another (and much longer-term)gay friend of his. Tant pis.

I have two principles when it comes to straight folks (straightmen, in particular, who are much more likely to have problemswith the idea of a homosexual man than they are with the ideaof a lesbian):

1. It's very easy to ignore other people's pain when thesource of that pain is something that is never going to affectyou personally. That's obviously also true in a vast number ofareas outside of minority sexual orientations (though the assumption"never going to affect you personally" is a dangerous oneto lean on in most other areas of life, and even in thecase of sexual orientation, even if you're 100% sure of your own,you can still be taken by surprise by unexpected revelationsfrom a spouse, sibling, or child.).

Gay men themselves, who have been **forced** bycircumstances to get over their own homophobia(to the extent that they ever do) have been through abaptism of fire. Read any coming out story in print, orwatch any coming out story on YouTube. Those guys wentthrough **hell** (and some, indeed, didn't survive it).

Some gay men are self-aware enough (even at the tender age of, say,16) to know that they'd be (self-described) "homophobicassholes" if they hadn't had their own feet held to thefire.

2. When it comes to sex, it seems to be the default reaction(at least among folks who are prone to the "disgust"sensitivity described above) that, if something doesn'tturn you on personally, it's likely to be a source ofdisgust. Neutrality doesn't seem to be an option fora lot of folks. This makes variety in the area ofof sexual preference a fraught topic.

You can't exactly **blame** people for this. They (ortheir genes) are just "trying" to make it into thenext generation.

If what you're doing (or would be likely to want to do withme) is a threat to **my** reproductive sucess, then --YUCK!

Desensitization is the key, I think. Exposure of kids, in asympathetic way, to the existence of alternative preferences,will shift public opinion further in the direction oftolerance in the long run (though the "yuck" factor willprobably **never** go away completely, and the fat kid whocan't climb the rope will probably continue to be called a"fag" by the other boys in gym class decades hence).If there's going to be a "gay agenda", this oughta be it.Naturally, the idea of such exposure makes the social conservativesgo ballistic, but there doesn't seem to be much theycan do about it. In contrast to 50 years ago, the _NewYork Times_ now considers news about homosexual issues "fitto print". Mainstream bookstores have "Gay & Lesbian" sections(however small). Mainstream movies and TV shows can have gaycharacters.

This is a far cry from the situation in 1948,when Gore Vidal's _The City and the Pillar_ could provoke thecomment by _New York Times_ book critic Orville Prescottthat he would "never again read, much less review" a bookby Vidal, resulting in a de facto blacklisting of thatauthor in all mainstream newspapers and magazines in the U.S.for the next two decades (encompassing seven novels).No publication has that kind of power anymore (think of thatthe next time you hear a newspaperman lamenting the factthat the Web is putting an end to the printed newspaper).

The desensitization process has accelerated **vastly**since the advent of the Web fifteen years ago. Private peoplecan take it upon themselves to tell their stories andeducate their peers, world-wide. The YouTube videos of folkslike Clark Johnsen and the other "MorMenLikeMe" channelcontributors must give the current "prophet" and his minionsabsolute fits in private. But I guess you can only beexcommunicated once, even in Mormonism.

I'm a gay man. Although I share your dissapointment over the Obama administration's handling of LGBT issues, I don't share your outrage.

I'm both a libertine who advocates abolishing marriage and replacing with flexible civil unions (regarless of the gender of or the number of people involved) and a pacifist/conscientious objector who advocates the radical demilitarization of the Unites States. Therefore, I can't for the life of understand why gays are fighting so hard to participate in an obsolete patriarchal institution or serve in an imperialist war machine.

Don't get me wrong. I understand it's an issue of civil rights and liberties for gays and deinstutionalizing homophobia but I prefer focusing on wiser battles that don't make me regret fighting them afterwards...

"It bears repeating, I suppose, that Eric and I (partnered for going on eight years now) disapprove of much of the human trafficking that has been historically denominated as "marriage," we disapprove of the false and facile ideology of possessive exclusivity and romantic "completion" that mobilizes so much marriage discourse, we disapprove of any politics that in fighting to secure marriage equality also functions to denigrate different ways of organizing loving and responsible and fulfilling relationships other than marriage, and we are not personally tempted in the least to become married ourselves. But you shouldn't for a single second think we are unaware that in refusing to grant us the right to refuse marriage a moralizing minority has commandeered the apparatus of the State in an effort at the ritual humiliation and dehumanization and denial of citizenship to fellow-citizens and peers and that this we will fight to the very end. And it is palpable here at the turning of the tide of anti-queer bigotry across the US that in the end we will indeed win the right to marry… whereupon we will cheerfully refuse to participate in the whole unappealing marital mess altogether."

I don't agree with you that refusing lgbtq citizens wanted marriage rights available to other citizens contributes anything at all in actual reality to dismantling marriage as an institution (as queer refusals of equitable actually-available marriages might), but it obviously and palpably contributes to the ongoing stigmatization and mistreatment of lgbtq folks. Acquiescing to unequal treatment doesn't actually translate to resistance, you know, although I will grant you it is a fairly effort-free way to pretend to radicalism.

Demilitarizing the United States? That's nothing. I advocate the demilitarization of all humanity, the dismantling of all authoritarian religions and the erasure of all so-called 'nations' so that we may all live in one peaceful world!

> [I]n 1948,. . . Gore Vidal's _The City and the Pillar_. . .> provoke[d] the comment by _New York Times_ book critic> Orville Prescott that he would "never again read, much less review"> a book by Vidal. . .

"My own objection to Orville Prescott is not so much his style(J. Donald Adams’ words are winged by comparison) nor his ignoranceof the more sophisticated critical strategies (he tells you the plot,anyway), but his identification with what he thinks to be his audience:the middle-aged, middle-class, moderately affluent American woman wholives in Darien, New Canaan, Scarsdale, a region bounded on thesouth by the Theatre Guild, on the north by Womrath, on the west byBarry Goldwater and on the east by . . . oh, well, you name it.Prescott knows these ladies are interested in sex; he also knowsthat they stand firmly united in condemning all sexual activity notassociated with marriage. Grimly, they attend each Tennessee Williamsplay so that they can complain furiously in the lobby that **this**time Williams has gone too far! that this time they are thoroughly**revolted** by that **diseased** mind! and never again will theyexpose themselves to such **filth**! And of course the next playWilliams writes they will all be back on deck, ready to be appalledagain.

Now it is true that The Girls (as Helen Hokinson nicely called them)**sound** like this. It’s expected of them. They don’t want any troublefrom one another and they have such an obvious vested interest inthe Family that any work which seems to accept or, worse, celebratenon-Family sex presents them with a clear conflict of interest whichthey must resolve, at the very least, by certain ritual noises of dissent.But Prescott has missed the point to The Girls. Though they must flapwhen the Family as an idea seems endangered, they do read more booksthan anyone else; they try to educate themselves politically andaesthetically; they are remarkably open-minded to new ideas and,all in all, more tolerant of life than a great many of the husbandswhose days are spent trying to make it up the ladder, lips pressedlovingly to the heel of the shoe on the next rung above. The Girlsare O.K., but they have their hypocrisies and prejudices, and thesePrescott tends to confirm.

Lately, after a decade’s abstinence, I have been reading Prescottagain and in a changing world it is good to know that the Good Grey Gooseof the _Times_ is unchanged. He still gives marks to novels not for stylenor insight nor wisdom nor art, but for “morality.” Are these nice people?Is this a nice author? Adultery, premarital intercourse, aberration,are wicked things nice people don’t do and if an author does not firmlyput them down and opt for marriage and fidelity the offending workmust go. Prescott’s favorite pejorative adjective is “dull.” _Lolita_,he declared with more than usual horror, was “dull, dull, dull!” Now_Lolita_ was many things (there is even a case to be made against it morally,and on its own terms), but it was never dull. It was also literature,a category peculiarly mystifying to Prescott. . .

Even dizzier (and the occasion for these corrective remarks) was Prescott’sreview of William Brammer’s political novel, _The Gay Place_. After firstadmiring Brammer’s skill in recreating the political scene, Prescott startsthat old familiar hissing noise. He expresses wonder that young politicianscommit adultery, have premarital intercourse, get drunk and otherwise behaveeven as people did back when Albert the Good mounted Victoria glumly tobirth the Age of Gilt. Then Prescott exclaims: “Men who never dream of beingfaithful to their wives, who enthusiastically seduce the wives and mistressesof their friends, are faithful to standards of political conduct.” He pretendsto be stunned by this paradox, and that brings us to the main issue: To theaverage American the word “morality” means sex, period. If you don’t cheaton your wife, you’re moral. It is part of our national genius to have no traditionof public morality. We are pleased to dismiss politics as entirely corrupt,if not financially, intellectually. Cheating the government of its taxes, and oneanother in business, is not only natural but necessary to survival. Now I wouldsuggest that a man’s relation to society is a matter of greater moral urgencythan his sexual dealings which, after all, are a private and relative matter.When a writer convincingly shows us, as Brammer does, young politicians devotedto right action, I am profoundly moved and morally edified. Prescott misses themoral point, preferring to dig for sex.

Now, before I’m investigated for having taken the un-Americanstand that sex is a minor department of morality, let me tryto show what I think is morally important. Ayn Rand is a rhetoricianwho writes novels I have never been able to read. She has justpublished a book, for the _New Intellectual_, subtitled _The Philosophyof Ayn Rand_; it is a collection of pensées and arias from hernovels and it must be read to be believed. Herewith, a few excerpts fromthe Rand collection.

• “It was the morality of altruism that undercut America and is nowdestroying her.”

• “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophicalopposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society.Today, the conflict has reached its ultimate climax; the choice isclear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with itsconsequence of freedom . . . or the primordial morality of altruismwith its consequences of slavery, etc.”

• Then from one of her arias for _heldentenor_: “I am done with themonster of ‘we,’ the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehoodand shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god overthe earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being,this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god,this one word: ‘I.’”

• “The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first dutyis to himself.”

• “To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creationof the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effortfor the effort of the best among men.”

• “The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral….”

This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed andself interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purestOrwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What interests memost about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,” but the size ofher audience (in my campaign for the House she was the one writer peopleknew and talked about). She has a great attraction for simple people whoare puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, whodislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of thesuffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them,she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil,self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetentthat’s your lookout.

She is fighting two battles: the first, against the idea of the Statebeing anything more than a police force and a judiciary to restrain peoplefrom stealing each other’s money openly. She is in legitimate company here.There is a reactionary position which has many valid attractions, among themlean, sinewy, regular-guy Barry Goldwater. But it is Miss Rand’s secondbattle that is the moral one. She has declared war not only on Marx buton Christ. Now, although my own enthusiasm for the various systems evolvedin the names of those two figures is limited, I doubt if even the mostanti-Christian free-thinker would want to deny the ethical value of Christin the Gospels. To reject that Christ is to embark on dangerous watersindeed. For to justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mindnot only immoral, but evil. For one thing, it is gratuitous to adviseany human being to look out for himself. You can be sure that he will.It is far more difficult to persuade him to help his neighbor to build adam or to defend a town or to give food he has accumulated to thevictims of a famine. But since we must live together, dependent uponone another for many things and services, altruism is necessary tosurvival. To get people to do needed things is the perennial hard taskof government, not to mention of religion and philosophy. That it isright to help someone less fortunate is an idea which ahs figuredin most systems of conduct since the beginning of the race. We oftenfail. That predatory demon “I” is difficult to contain but until nowwe have all agreed that to help others is a right action. Now thedictionary definition of “moral” is: “concerned with the distinctionbetween right and wrong” as in “moral law, the requirements to whichright action must conform.” Though Miss Rand’s grasp of logic isuncertain, she does realize that to make even a modicum of sense shemust change all the terms. Both Marx and Christ agree that in thislife a right action is consideration for the welfare of others.In the one case, through a state which was to wither away, in theother through the private exercise of the moral sense. Miss Rand nowtells us that what we have thought was right is really wrong.The lesson should have read: One for one and none for all.

Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makesthe size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we entera curious new phase in our society. Moral values are in flux. Themuddy depths are being stirred by new monsters and witches from the deep.Trolls walk the American night. Caesars are stirring in the Forum.There are storm warnings ahead. But to counter trolls and Caesars,we have such men as Lewis Mumford whose new book, _The City in History_,inspires. He traces the growth of communities from Neolithic topresent times. He is wise. He is moral: that is, he favors right actionand he believes it possible for us to make things better for us(not “me”!). He belongs to the currently unfashionable line of makerswho believe that if something is wrong it can be made right, whethera faulty water main or a faulty idea. May he flourish!

I understand Dale's entirely justified outrage. Either citizens are equal in front of the law, or they are not.

Obama: if I were a US citizen I would have voted for him (of course), with a lot of confidence in an administration much better than the previous one, but without really hoping to see radical change. Election to high office always comes with a political price to pay (or else). Perhaps in the second term.

Sorry for late reply... I'm a bit busy myself...Would that it were so simple.

It isn't simple. But people aren't billiard balls, or mere bunches of "egoistical genes" or whathaveyou. We undoubtedly can be rational and exercise our willpower, at least to an extent. And if we want to call ourselves "left," "progressive," "civil rights defenders" and so on we'd rather exercise those a little, or else all our theories and slogans are worthless, just as they proved to be in that tale of yours. I was in that guy's place once(*), I didn't handle it all that well, but... Well, I didn't turn 180 degrees on the relevant political issues either. Never ocurred to me to do so.

Some gay men are self-aware enough (even at the tender age of, say,16) to know that they'd be (self-described) "homophobicassholes" if they hadn't had their own feet held to thefire.

Which I'm afraid is the core of the problem. For one's left leanings to have any substance, there has to be some sort of hell you went through, be it racial, sexual or economical or military. But our culture doesn't revard those who are in hell, - quite on the contrary, it immediately brands such people as "weak." Some people who went to the hell and back might be exempt, but in current climate they are overshadowed by draft-dodging chickenhawks, thrice-divorced borthel patrons who are talking "traditional values", "financial geniuses" who never have been leading a legitimate and useful enterprise, and other people who appear to be successful without paying anything for their success. That their popularity and credibility is failing after all is a good sign, but that only happened because people discovered that you have to pay those bills for your apparent success anyway. Whether or not that understanding could become transformational, and teach us all to value substance over style, compassion over bigotry, and thinking instead of acting on reflexes, is to be seen. But I very much hope it would.

(*) Ok, situation was probably more complicated. he wasn't much of a friend, he was in the closet, lots of beer, actual offer of sex, neighbor who was a mean bully and would probably learn of the whole incident, thanks to nonexistent soundfproofing... I had to say very empathic "no," but in a way that won't imply that I'm going to betray his secret or otherwise disrespect him. I failed, and never have seen him again since that night to apologize. I'm still not sure what should I have done.